From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C6F7139337 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 16:40:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A9ECBE0924; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 16:40:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm1-x330.google.com (mail-wm1-x330.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::330]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DCC2E0908 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 16:40:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-x330.google.com with SMTP id m38-20020a05600c3b26b02902161fccabf1so8616055wms.2 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 09:40:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=asokolov.org; s=google; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=03kcC3J183K1q8RFB7eHvfGqaI10Y07hBfUNCerEo0Y=; b=Isbr6ez5iXrPZPgWHc+dZLkmStCJRUDUHRpj5HvCh4l551ADMGEt2k8g6TyrJ9ujPT 5BZqwt+fvrOokX/ZxvOGFuObaUzuAGbja0XGxrreoZ2ya15Zdpu9+7Uf6T98guO0qB0a Cr6Gz2dp3OJEyUNMEI3WLchUq4NHzubKdyi3eX2hUc+/LPX+Wgg64AZGGd4ApBaKEfCk LhbYaL/s7j3dSIZH6HMGYHsu2i8egNx5aAWiwrLQF7t64pYohboIU3LQgjgRRnVHqJUz 2SxAbFSBYLZ0nME3M/g1oUguZlvorvAiAXG15PV84yvPk6RCIcUUm9oZK4ivG+TE7mTJ GMFw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=03kcC3J183K1q8RFB7eHvfGqaI10Y07hBfUNCerEo0Y=; b=XkkyzbXma6Sggn5d3R6GSzDGy+waxEZ9ek9z2uus1imXuQ5eOrX6l+NQQx74JilzTx PgeP7inDk9LFEIotjPovcyou5ekXWBsbumVzsDt7S272ZxVMW+t+zjKeFGGcoRAf9Wpx HkO1Zb2HH7UpS3XnXUM99ejZ9Uu6w4gL4SSPSA+tu2ohHIjrxCwe2XZzc9nYzKqwNeK+ 4zgpQkcZ4ABphyZjQbKiEUArIrcujxA21MZvd3qDHHB3NoLtpYB+ekQY7a1ZA6cgZUno 5al3bFQV3bdaI91tcnAB6yDTRHakN+hgz5lGJnWIyihGD8K/iBNBt7YjfJ4vvHVS8HZE 7sRw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531pf0mOJenBdgCgHFSSDtv7ik2OHlie765ZdlkBPSkulJa0BQ/E 8O6v94xyF29dzfrILyby/h0/odhmqjjU5w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxlHdE9CvknJvfgVB0CJZQCPF3OT1IA5nyQFZ8sDuyJ9wM2if4FYfLWiIyCIRGteR3P4olawQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:19cb:: with SMTP id u11mr13723687wmq.1.1627317638163; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 09:40:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2a02:278:41a0:87d:b62e:99ff:feaa:4dfb? ([2a02:278:41a0:87d:b62e:99ff:feaa:4dfb]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id h9sm257531wmb.35.2021.07.26.09.40.37 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 26 Jul 2021 09:40:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Guarantees of unstable architectures To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <57d9469d-ed7f-3641-b2c1-2c2916e53c6d@gentoo.org> From: Alexey Sokolov Message-ID: <5fe87224-f313-3259-a58f-525aef87a6b2@asokolov.org> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 17:40:34 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <57d9469d-ed7f-3641-b2c1-2c2916e53c6d@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: ee5db071-7c7a-4e7d-aa36-90cb43344cef X-Archives-Hash: b1c0ba6034796d4b3f6ee707d7712f13 26.07.2021 17:23, Marek Szuba пишет: > Dear everyone, > > During the open-floor part of this month's Council meeting I asked > whether there is any official policy regarding what is or is not > guaranteed for hardware architectures we do not consider stable in > Gentoo. For reference, according to the current version of > profiles/arches.desc (commit 7bdebec50c44c0222bf76334c34926b593e94dd4, > dated 2021-04-05) this means: alpha, ia64, m68k, mips, riscv, s390, > and all Prefix arches. Only the non-RAP one (amd64-linux etc). The prefix installation on amd64 now supports using stable amd64 keyword: https://bugs.gentoo.org/759424 > > As it turns out, we do not in fact have any such policy. On the other > hand, during my time as a Gentoo developer I have heard from other > developers a fairly wide range of opinions on the subject - from > insisting on clean QA results, passing tests etc. regardless of whether > an arch is stable or not to assuming we guarantee nothing for unstable > arches. > > Anyway, it has been decided that it makes sense to discuss this on the > mailing list before making it a Council matter. Therefore - what do you > all think here? > -- Best regards, Alexey "DarthGandalf" Sokolov